Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24048296›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2013

Effectiveness of general practice based, practice nurse led telephone coaching on glycaemic control of type 2 diabetes: the Patient Engagement and Coaching for Health (PEACH) pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

Irene D Blackberry, John S Furler, James D Best, Patty Chondros, Margarite Vale, Christine Walker, Trisha Dunning, Leonie Segal, James Dunbar, Ralph Audehm and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03453970 (Effectiveness of a Diabetes Education Program Based on Tailored Interventions in the Andalusian Public Health and Social System), which is not on this map. Cited by 46 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03453970 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of a Diabetes Education Program Based on Tailored Interventions in the Andalusian Public Health and Social System (Edep-Ti Study).

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MalagaRan2018 to 2021Enrolled410ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2ArmsTherapeutic Education Program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Effect of telemedicine on glycated hemoglobin in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2017
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Irene D BlackberryGeneral Practice and Primary Health Care Academic Centre, University of Melbourne, 200 Berkeley St, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia.
John S Furler
James D Best
Patty Chondros
Margarite Vale
Christine Walker
Trisha Dunning
Leonie Segal
James Dunbar
Ralph Audehm
Danny Liew
Doris Young

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of goal focused telephone coaching by practice nurses in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in Australia.

designProspective, cluster randomised controlled trial, with general practices as the unit of randomisation.

settingGeneral practices in Victoria, Australia.

participants59 of 69 general practices that agreed to participate recruited sufficient patients and were randomised. Of 829 patients with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >7.5% in the past 12 months) who were assessed for eligibility, 473 (236 from 30 intervention practices and 237 from 29 control practices) agreed to participate.

interventionPractice nurses from intervention practices received two days of training in a telephone coaching programme, which aimed to deliver eight telephone and one face to face coaching episodes per patient.

main outcome measuresThe primary end point was mean absolute change in HbA1c between baseline and 18 months in the intervention group compared with the control group.

resultsThe intervention and control patients were similar at baseline. None of the practices dropped out over the study period; however, patient attrition rates were 5% in each group (11/236 and 11/237 in the intervention and control group, respectively). The median number of coaching sessions received by the 236 intervention patients was 3 (interquartile range 1-5), of which 25% (58/236) did not receive any coaching sessions. At 18 months' follow-up the effect on glycaemic control did not differ significantly (mean difference 0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.20 to 0.24, P=0.84) between the intervention and control groups, adjusted for HbA1c measured at baseline and the clustering. Other biochemical and clinical outcomes were similar in both groups.

conclusionsA practice nurse led telephone coaching intervention implemented in the real world primary care setting produced comparable outcomes to usual primary care in Australia. The addition of a goal focused coaching role onto the ongoing generalist role of a practice nurse without prescribing rights was found to be ineffective.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN50662837.

Indexed as

CounselingGeneral PracticePractice Patterns, Nurses'AgedCommunicationDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansHyperglycemiaMaleMiddle AgedNurse-Patient RelationsTelephoneVictoriaGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID24048296
PMCPMC3776648

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.